JEP-ABC July 2018
Not a whole lot going on in this issue. A couple of papers of interest, perhaps. In Tran et al., rats were given high-fat, high-sugar diets (or not) and the researchers found that this selectively impacted on certain kinds of memory. They concluded that this diet tends to have minimal effect on recollection judgments, but impairs familiarity judgments. So, "where" memories were impacted in a spatial memory test more than We speculate that the HFHS diet adversely affects “where” memories and “what” memories. There is the usual discussion of recollection and familiarity memory models, hippocampal-dependent functions, and episodic food memories. Tran, D. M. D., & Westbrook, R. F. (2018). Dietary effects on object recognition: The impact of high-fat high-sugar diets on recollection and familiarity-based memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 44(3), 217-228. Here is another paper of potential interest, that I am copying in simply because I think it is pretty self-explanatory: Smith, A. P., Zentall, T. R., & Kacelnik, A. (2018). Midsession reversal task with pigeons: Parallel processing of alternatives explains choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 44(3), 272-279. Most models of choice assume a “tug of war” (ToW) between options present at the time of the choice, arguing that preferences are built on this process, and implying that adding options increases delay to act. In contrast, the sequential choice model (SCM) proposes that choices are driven by parallel expression of the mechanisms that control action in sequential encounters, without comparative deliberation at choice time. Only the SCM predicts choice preferences based on latencies to respond in single-option encounters. SCM further predicts that latencies to choose should either be the same or shorter than those in sequential encounters. We contrasted these models using a midsession reversal task with pigeons. Responses to one alternative (S1) were rewarded in the first half of each session and those to the other (S2) in the second half. Single-option (sequential) and two-option (choice) trials were intermingled. In choice trials subjects strongly preferred S1 early in the session, showed intermediate preferences toward the midsession, and preferred S2 late. These preferences were all predicted by changes in latency toward the presently negative alternative (S2 early and S1 late) in single-option trials. Latency toward presently positive stimuli were minimal throughout, in both single and two option trials, with no evidence of an evaluation time cost of choice. The ability to predict choice preference from latencies in sequential encounters and the absence of a choice delay support the SCM against ToW models, consistently with results from other protocols and species. Finally, these two dudes published this: Smith, T. R., & Beran, M. J. (2018). Task switching in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) during computerized categorization tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 44(3), 229-246. We based this, in part, on a Castro and Wasserman paper on classification with rule-switching constraints. First, we replicated Castro and Wasserman by using capuchin monkeys and rhesus monkeys and reported that monkeys’ performances were similar to pigeons’ in terms of acquisition, pattern of errors, and the absence of switch costs. The task involved deciding on each trial what rule was cued (choose larger, choose smaller, choose homogeneous, choose heterogeneous), and so we could look at switch costs, etc. Experiment 2 was conducted to include categorization cue reversals to determine (a) whether the monkeys would quickly adapt to the reversals and inhibit interference from a prereversal task rule (consistent with a rule-based mechanism) and (b) whether the latency to make a response prior to a correct or incorrect outcome was informative about the presence of a cognitive mechanism. The cue reassignment produced a lot of trouble for them, and a long reacquisition phase suggested the involvement of associative learning processes. But, they showed some involvement of non-associative processes.